List discovered functional audience segments with observed workflows and toolchains for a given run_id to support local, auditable opportunity discovery.
List discovered functional audience segments with observed workflows and toolchains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'List' implies read-only and 'discovered' hints results derive from a prior run, but there is no mention of run scoping, pagination via limit (default 20), result ordering, or what happens if the run has no audiences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though at the cost of omitting needed detail elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the definition omits run_id semantics, pagination behavior, and any usage context for a tool that must be distinguished from many find_* and compare_* siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate but does not: run_id's role (which extraction run's results to list) and limit's pagination behavior are unexplained. Only the resource being listed is conveyed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (functional audience segments), including what the segments contain (observed workflows and toolchains). It is distinguishable from signal/need siblings, though it does not name or contrast with the closest relative, compare_audiences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to call this versus siblings like compare_audiences, find_signals, or find_needs, and no stated prerequisites despite run_id being required. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.